Statement from Ministry of Education Attempted to Influence 2022 BC School Trustee Election

So-called "anti-SOGI" candidates lead to urgent issuing of pro-SOGI statement by Ministry.

A freedom of information release package is available online detailing how, in September 2022, a month and a half before the October 15th school trustee elections, the BC K-12 SOGI Collaborative held a meeting where the issue of “anti-SOGI” (sexual orientation and gender identity) sentiments and candidates were discussed. The organizations present at the meeting decided to issue a statement prepared by the Ministry of Education and Child Care (ECC) in order to “focus on pro-active messaging at the beginning of the school year vs reactive messaging specific to anti-SOGI trustee candidate platforms”.

The K-12 SOGI Collective includes a range of public sector school professional organizations, independent schools, First Nations schools, and workers’ unions. Below is the attendance at the particular meeting where the statement was discussed. According to the meeting notes, the organizations most eager to address the anti-SOGI sentiments circulating at the time were the BC School Superintendents’ Association, BC Principals’ and Vice Principals’ Association, BC School Trustees’ Association, First Nations Education Steering Committee, BC Confederation of Parent Advisory Councils, and Canadian Union of Public Employees.

Interestingly, the BC School Trustees’ Association (BCSTA) also noted in the meeting that they wanted “to avoid potential conflict by addressing the public positioning of individuals”. In other words, they wanted to make a statement related to this issue but did not want it to relate to any specific existing or potential association member which would be a more obvious conflict. Here is the statement that was released on September 16th, 2022, after being circulated to the Collaborative members, reviewed and approved by the ARC Foundation, and approved by Minister Jennifer Whiteside:

“We know that each child expresses themselves in their own unique way and some have been bullied and ostracized in the past. All of B.C.’s provincial education partners for K-12 schools – public and independent – are standing together in solidarity to ensure every school is a place where all students deserve to be welcomed, included and respected in a safe learning environment, while being fully and completely themselves. No student should be excluded or bullied because of their sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression.

“In 2016, the B.C. Human Rights Code was amended to ensure that gender identity and expression are protected under the code. There is no room for any type of discrimination in our schools. As provincial education partners, we stand together in this commitment. All 60 school districts, independent and First Nations schools have SOGI-inclusive codes of conduct and policies in place and many are participants in the B.C. SOGI Educator Network. We have joined collaboratively with ARC Foundation and 11 education and community partner groups to form the Provincial K-12 SOGI Collaborative, officially committing to creating learning environments that are safe, respectful and welcoming for all B.C. students.

“B.C.’s K-12 curriculum includes a focus on valuing diversity and respecting differences, as well as human rights and responses to discrimination. Students deserve to have the complete support of teachers, administrators, support staff, trustees, parents, guardians, caregivers and their community, as we work together to create learning environments where all students are free from discrimination so they can thrive and succeed in their school years and beyond.”

(The validity of much of the statement could be disputed but that would be a long tangent. My previous article covers some of the inaccurate and questionable content included in SOGI puberty class lessons and much more could be said about the scientific inaccuracies, inappropriate sexuality, philosophical underpinnings, and lack of common sense shown in the curriculum materials in general.)

The context of the meeting and resulting statement was one of controversy leading up to the school trustee election. There had been significant attention on Barry Neufeld, long time SOGI-critical trustee for the Chilliwack Board of Education, due to a defamation lawsuit against Glen Hansman of the BCTF. Media articles around this time leaned heavily into rhetoric demonizing anyone who had a view contrary to popular opinion. The Tyee for example ran with the title “Across BC, Right-Wing Candidates Are Bashing How Schools Teach”. For all the drama of the headline, what followed was a tepid review of so-called controversial school trustee candidates which actually revealed common sense and moderate platforms.

That any candidate which deviated from complete fealty to SOGI curriculum was called out as extreme shows the fervour by media and government around this issue. The statement release was a way for the ECC, K-12 SOGI Collaborative, and the ARC Foundation to circle the wagons as worry set in among SOGI supporters. The implication of the statement is that anyone questioning a component of SOGI is, if not directly, then indirectly causing discrimination at schools.

While a ministry releasing a statement in favour of government policy is logical, the context of this release is eyebrow raising, to say the least. The meeting notes clearly indicate that the only reason that this statement was released was to control the narrative around SOGI and impact the effectiveness of trustees’ campaigns.

There are also numerous public employees (ministry staff) who were part of the meeting and the effort to produce a statement. Producing materials which are political in nature, and which have the express purpose of affecting the outcome of an election may go against the Standards of Conduct for BC Public Service Employees, which states that:

If engaging in political activities, employees must remain impartial and retain the perception of impartiality in relation to their duties and responsibilities. Employees must not engage in political activities during working hours or use government facilities, equipment, or resources in support of these activities.

Why would the ministry and the K-12 SOGI Collaborative be so desperate to control the narrative around school curriculum and ignore any criticism from parents and the public? Did they trully believe the curriculum was in the best interests of children? Was everything that the ARC Foundation produced perceived as so good and righteous that there was no debate to be had due to its association with “mariginalized” youth? The alternative explanation is that it was (and continues to be) politically expedient to align SOGI with the government’s politics and turn SOGI critics into bogeymen to motivate their base.

Apart from developing curriculum, the ARC Foundation’s role is to ensure all SOGI-supporting organizations’ messaging stays on script. The ARC Foundation’s name appears throughout the emails released, referencing their role providing support drafting messaging for school districts. Their review and approval were also necessary for a Minister’s statement! Although unclear from the documents, it also appears that the foundation instigated or fed the discussion around the school trustee candidates by noting that ARC had been receiving more negative correspondence from the public on this issue. The ARC Foundation has a vested interest in ensuring its survival as an organization. If dissenting school trustees and parents were really allowed to have a say, fairly soon there could be pressure to curtail contracts with ARC, which total $350,000 annually from the ECC. (Here is a link to a great article by Eva Kurilova on the background and financial ties of the ARC Foundation.)

That the ECC and teaching and administrative staff should be on board with SOGI is predictable. SOGI has been included in postsecondary education curriculum since 2016, so it’s not surprising that there would be thousands of teachers and administration eager to defend the curriculum. The strategy of creating a K-12 SOGI Collaborative under the guise of engagement also stifles any debate within those organizations. Surely there are dissenters within these unions and organizations, but the fact that the organization subscribes to SOGI would make the social and professional cost of speaking up too high for most.

The social cost of dissent could be another aspect of what makes the SOGI bloc of the ECC, public sector unions, and private associations that much more impenetrable. By now we are all well aware of the risk one runs in saying anything negative, or even questioning, regarding the trans doctrine. The definition of transphobia (or transmisia as some now call it) is so broad that it’s nearly impossible to even talk about trans anything without being labelled a "transphobe”. For many in the educational or public service, this could spell career death. I understand that fear. But with the potential impacts of this situation so extreme, ranging from medicalization of gender-confused children, to the loss of women’s right to privacy, dignity, and sex-based rights, maintaining the status quo is untenable.

If this subject interests you, here is a recent post about what some SOGI curriculum actually looks like: